Help us test a polymer AR-15 Lower

Id be interesting in testing this with a Tactical Solutions .22 upper. I've found the Tac Sol upper is finnicky, and a cost-effective solution to that issue would be really nice.

Id also be happy to run it at a Tactical Rifle match.



Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk

I would be interested to see what would happen if you froze the lower/entire gun, then dropped it on a hard surface. If it can stand up to that I'd say it's good to go as long as the internals are durable. I'll admit I'm skeptical about a polymer fire control group, but if it could hold up to a high round count and had a decent trigger pull I would consider one.

I was skeptical about the Plum Crazy lowers but after holding a lightweight rifle built with one I can see their utility. I probably wouldn't use one in a life-on-the-line situation, but for anything else they're probably ok. If they run ok with a dedicated .22 upper it would make a great gun for a young kid. My daughter really enjoys shooting my dedicated .22 SBR, but since she's such a tiny little thing even that is kind of heavy for her. I wouldn't mind trying one.

New frontier

You need a better unique selling proposition other than price. Price will only grab people chasing the bottom line on a cheap rifle.
Why is your lower a better mousetrap than a forged lower? Highlight that.

Another test i would like to see is on the internals. Mixing metal and plastic i'd like to know if the interior gets scratched or marred by the metal. I'm also curious to how the holes for pins hold up over repeated use.

Make a DPMS/Remington compatible complete .308 lower. There's plenty of 5.56 lowers and manu's...do something different.
Also use metal structural inserts.

And I'd LOVE to buy one.

Selling point of $99 for a complete lower ready to pin to an upper is important to a lot of people, but besides that weight is a huge advantage. 7.5 oz to someone trying to complete a light weight build is a big deal.

Click to expand...

That's where I could see this really filling a role. As a dedicated .22 rifle for a kid or a light weight rifle to haul around it could really work as long as it's durable. I already have a stripped lower that's slated for an eventual .22 build for my daughter, but I could be persuaded to go with something like this.

NewFrontierArmory said:

Guys, just to kind of reitterate, we're not trying to re-invent the mousetrap or replace Colt as the go to rifle for the US military.

We're trying to put something out that is a safe, affordable means for someone to have an AR for around the $599 mark who otherwise couldn't afford it.

Click to expand...

Would love to see a picture or video of the 'clacker'.

Building a polymer lower for an AR-15 is a simple project, really. With all the CAD and FEM analysis software that is available these days its no trouble. You calculate your maximum stresses and choose a polymer to withstand it or use a mitigating structure like a metallic insert. High heat is not a factor, the lowers don't get hot. As far as stiffness and maintaining light-weight, choose a polymer which maximizes E-mod/density. Generally speaking, you have to sacrifice lower weight to increase stiffness if your goal is to avoid using reinforcement, like CFRP.

I'm interested to see where this project goes. I'm a senior mechanical engineering student, specialized in materials. Naturally this project is right up my alley. Let me know if I can be of any assistance.

Run it over with a truck or something heavy.
Smack the heck out of it with a hammer.
Spray it with nasty solvents such as oven cleaner, degreaser, carb cleaner, etc as well as gun cleaning solvents.
Pull one out of the freezer and beat on it.
Put one in an oven to show use where it melts.
Take a torch to it.
Demonstrate scratch resistance violently.
Squeeze it in a vice.
Show us the metal inserts and tell us how awesome they are.
Demonstrate what Plum Crazy does wrong that you do right.
Show us how you protect the pin holes from premature wear.

I agree, send me one. I'll build it and shoot the heck out of it and see what happens.

Hmmm... This is interesting. I have a Cav-15 that I plan to build on so I'm not adverse to the idea of a polymer AR, but I'm not sure that I would go for one with a standard buffer tube arrangement.

During my time in the Marines, I saw two M-16A2's that broke. Both times it was the buffer tube. One was in boot camp during bayonet training. A recruit really put all he had into a horizontal butt stroke and the tube sheared off.

The second time was a stack of rifles that a gunny inadvertently ran over with a HMMWV. Same thing, the tube sheared right at the back of the receiver.

One of the things that I really appreciate about the Cav-15 is that it eliminates this weakness. Some of the things that I don't like so much about the Cav-15 is that it doesn't allow me to change pistol grips (I wouldn't mind something with some storage there) or use a larger trigger guard (it gets cold where I live).

I'm interested in your polymer lower, but not nearly so much as I would be if it had an A1 length buttstock molded into it and the ability to use the same pistol grips and trigger guards as any other AR.

Now as for suggestions for testing it, I recommend that you give it to a bunch of linebacker sized guys and have them run it through a bayonet course.

If it holds up to that, I would put a .50 BMG AR upper on it and run a hundred rounds through that setup. Better yet, take the same lower and do this test twice. Once after leaving the rifle out in a -25F night and again after it being out in a 120F day.

Of course these are quite outside the parameters of what someone will likely do to their rifle. Another test you might want to do is instead of just cycling the action, figure out how much force it experiences when firing. Build a machine to duplicate this and keep cranking up the force until it fails.

Okay, I am, have been, and always will be an AR nut, and I tested gear for the military and for the Stryker units beginning after 9/11. I'd say 90% of it was AR related, stocks, rails, gear for rails, barrels, you name it. Every single one sent free gear to test and keep afterwards (except Oly, they wanted their junk back, and we were happy to oblilge). Most even sent more than one so we could break a couple in order to have confidence in the breaking point. I had to write a letter on Bde. letterhead to our commander and I also wrote one on the same to the manufacturer. We told them what we found, what we did, and what we recommended they change in our eyes. Most took this to heart, and we were instrumental in getting the plastic arm mount on the PVS14 changed to a new design and material that flexed instead of broke! A few didn't, Oly included, we recommended a few small changes to their designs and they got angry about it, but we couldn't purchase and issue their parts as-is to our SDM's in good faith and so parted ways, a shame since they were just a couple exits past the fort.

We were pretty thourough, but keep in mind we were doing innovative things at the time and we were in no way testing things for the army as a whole (although some of the gear tested did end up in demonstrations we put on for the War College...). Simply put, I have experience doing exactly this sort of thing with AR's in particular.

Now I wrote a good long detailed version of the above in a PM to the OP because I'm interested in testing these for the sole reason of determining their value as a cheap range rifle or truck rifle. A $400 AR. Since he admits to not trying to compete with a mil spec rifle, no foul there. It doesn't need to be beat up, but it does need to be a good range rifle and wear well in that respect.

And with all my experience in doing this, the detailed letter I wrote him, and the offer I extended him, I haven't heard a peep from him. I contacted him when he started this thread, and he's been pretty active on here, but not so interested in actually having these tested out by folks in the know that have an open mind.

I think this thread is just a marketing thread to drum up business at this point, and I'll just keep filing the platic AR components in the possible junk file until either I test them myself or read a good test by someone I trust.

Just something to keep in mind. I have a fellow on here wanting me to test some pistol targets for him. He'll get a good review, and so will you, I promise. If this guy will send me a lower, he'll get a good review, but again, so would you all, so I suspect this is why he is ignoring me.

The most cost effective way to test it isn't to mass produce a 1st run haphazardly and see what happens. The way to do it is computer simulation and careful analysis, where changes in the design can be done inexpensively. The 1st run should be something that you expect to work fully. If you don't use technology to your advantage, you'll burn through money just to finally settle on a mediocre product. Prototype testing should be with a low production number.

Another thing is people suggesting that we drive over it with a tank, hit with a torch, smack it repeatedly with a forging hammer, etc.

Since we don't know what the objectives are for the lower other than polymer, low cost, and low weight, those tests aren't important at all and can't be used as a criteria for success.

I'd like to have one to build a suppressed 9mm AR. I mean there are images and videos of guys making AR lowers from cutting boards. So why not.
I'd like to see aluminum inserts for the treads to attach the buffer tube. I don't think I'd polymer threaded parts to mate with metal.
I haven't read the entire thread so excuse me if they are already like this, but if they prove to be reliable. I will buy one for a 9mm carbine if you go that route as well.

Run it over with a truck or something heavy.
Smack the heck out of it with a hammer.
Spray it with nasty solvents such as oven cleaner, degreaser, carb cleaner, etc as well as gun cleaning solvents.
Pull one out of the freezer and beat on it.
Put one in an oven to show use where it melts.
Take a torch to it.
Demonstrate scratch resistance violently.
Squeeze it in a vice.

Click to expand...

Geez, a forged ALUMINUM AR-15 receiver wouldn't survive that.

Maybe, maybe not, but a Polymer XD or Glock can.

Lab tests only carry so much water with me. About the only test that would really convince me is running it in high round count carbine classes. I think that is about as close as it gets to approximating the kind of treatment it would get in a combat situation. Send some of your employees to some classes with them and document how they hold up.

Also, if you're wanting to sell complete lowers including a stock, I would consider making the buttstock optional, or offer them with other buttstocks that you sell. Lots of guys have a personal preference on what type of stock they want, so it would offer better value if you could order it with what you want instead of having to swap parts out as soon as you open the box. So along with the regular CAR-15 stock, maybe offer it with a Magpul CTR, Vltor Emod, LMT SOPMOD, etc.

Cryogenically freeze them, then put them through the firing test, the drop test, and any other test you'd like to try. This would prove beyond a shadow of doubt (or not) that even in the most extreme case of cold it would (or would not) affect it.

I'm on board with samples sent to individuals for evaluation, especially if I'm on that list.

field testing should be done to back up lab findings. making a design solely by field testing is a stupid and expensive way to do things.

but it's not my money so go ahead.

I have to agree with Mistwolf on this. Give it to LAV and let him torture test it. Also, while I see you're saying rifle in the $600 price range, PSA is already doing this with standard AR parts, actually with what looks to be good AR parts. What are you offering that they're not? The design and materials they're using is proven. Please explain why you believe the customer would go with a polymer lower, which is unproven in an AR, vs what PSA is offering.